Court orders Vladimir Guerrero Jr. to pay RD$25 million for work on his Nizao villa

Santo Domingo. – The Civil, Commercial and Labor Chamber of the Court of First Instance of Peravia province sentenced Major League player Vladimir Guerrero Jr. to pay RD$25,352,970 in favor of the company Rose Art Deco, SRL, for construction and design work carried out at his vacation villa located in Nizao.

You may be interested in: MLB announces schedules and matchups for the 2025 postseason

The ruling, identified with the number 538-2025-SCIV-00604 and issued on September 18, 2025, accepts in all its parts the lawsuit for debt collection filed by the company, represented by its manager Rosa María de la Cruz, through the lawyers Manuel Olivero Rodríguez and Fernando Gutiérrez Figuereo. According to the civil action, Guerrero Jr. would have failed to pay for the contracted work, despite the fact that the company executed the works agreed upon in the construction and interior design project of the house.

Case Background

During the legal process, the baseball player filed a criminal complaint against Rose Art Deco, SRL, alleging “work paid for and not performed”. However, the court of first instance discharged the company and its representatives of all criminal liability, a ruling that was subsequently confirmed by the Court of Appeals of San Cristóbal.

The recent civil decision recognizes the validity of the work performed and orders the Toronto Blue Jays player to pay the full amount owed for the services rendered.

Company Reaction

The company manager, Rosa María de la Cruz, expressed her satisfaction with the ruling, highlighting that "justice was done after several years of legal battle."

“Today I feel calm because the Court recognized that Mr. Vladimir Guerrero Jr. played with our work, sweat and effort, using the filing of a criminal complaint as a mechanism to avoid paying us. We left relieved and now we hope that he complies with the payment he owes us,” said De la Cruz.

The businesswoman thanked her legal team and considered that the decision represents an important precedent for the defense of the rights of small and medium-sized enterprises against contractual breaches.